Exploring Science and Maths Teachers' Perceptions of STEM Education in Hunza, Gilgit-Baltistan

Academy of Education and Social Sciences Review Vol. 5 No. 4 | November, 2025 | 413 - 426 ISSN (p): 2790-8348 | ISSN (e): 2789-6781 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17767997 Exploring Science and Maths Teachers’ Perceptions of STEM Education in Hunza, Gilgit-Baltistan Banazir Murtaza1 Department of Educational Development Karakoram International University, Gilgit, Pakistan Sadruddin Bahadur Qutoshi2 (Ph.D) Department of Educational Development Karakoram International University, Gilgit, Pakistan How to Cite: Murtaza, B., & Qutoshi, S. B. (2025). Exploring Science and Maths Teachers’ Perceptions of STEM Education in Hunza, Gilgit Baltistan. Academy of Education and Social Sciences Review, 5(4). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17767997 Publisher’s Note: International Research and Publishing Academy (iRAPA) stands neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in the published maps and institutional affiliations. Copyright: ©2025 | Academy of Education and Social Sciences Review published by International Research and Publishing Academy (iRAPA) This is an Open Access article published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0) Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY): lets others distribute and copy the article, to create extracts, abstracts, and other revised versions, adaptations or derivative works of or from an article (such as a translation), to include in a collective work (such as an anthology), to text or data mine the article, even for commercial purposes, as long as they credit the author(s), do not represent the author as endorsing their adaptation of the article, and do not modify the article in such a way as to damage the author's honour or reputation. 04-44-AESSR-6302-1156 Published online: 30 November 2025 View related articles Submit your article to this journal Murtaza & Qutoshi Vol. 5 No. 4 (November, 2025) 414 INTRODUCTION The relentless pace of global economic and technological change necessitates a fundamental transformation in educational paradigms. To get students ready for the challenges of the digital age, we need to move away from traditional, isolated teaching methods and towards a more interesting, hands-on, and cross-disciplinary approach. The global focus on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education is a good example of this change (Gonzalez, & Kuenzi, 2012). These skills include being able to solve problems in new ways, think critically and analytically, be creative, come up with new ideas, work well with others, and use technology (Mustam & Adnan, 2019; Perales & Aróstegui, 2024). The significance of STEM education lies in its unique ability to equip students with the necessary skills and knowledge to meet the demands and capitalize on the opportunities presented by a contemporary global economy primarily fuelled by technological advancements and innovation (Hallinen, 2024). It facilitates a culture of inquisitiveness and continuous learning, empowering students to investigate, interrogate, and uncover the phenomena of both the natural and artificial world. Furthermore, STEM education has been shown to facilitate a more comprehensive and significant comprehension of fundamental concepts and principles across its constituent disciplines, highlighting their interrelatedness and practical implications (Perales & Aróstegui, 2024; Hallinen, 2024). Beyond academic achievement, it can foster a sense of identity and belonging among students within a society that increasingly esteems and promotes STEM fields, potentially increasing their inclination to pursue STEM careers and contribute to socio-economic welfare (Hallinen, 2024). However, despite its proclaimed potential, STEM education implementation encounters several universal challenges and limitations, including insufficient awareness, inadequate resources, issues of diversity and inclusion, and misalignment with existing curricula and standardized assessment regimes (Hallinen, 2024; Perales & Aguilera, 2024). These challenges are often exacerbated in developing nations. In Pakistan, and particularly in remote regions like Gilgit-Baltistan, the integration of STEM education within the K-12 and tertiary levels is nascent and faces unique hurdles. The nation’s STEM education system is often described as underprepared and unfocused, grappling with a lack of adequate regulatory measures and a low literacy rate that highlights significant gaps in educational quality (Hali et al., 2021; Aslam et al., 2022). While the necessity to enhance the “STEM pipeline” from school to the workforce is acknowledged globally (as cited in Washington et al., 2006 under National Science Board), achieving this in the Pakistani context requires a deep understanding of ground-level realities, starting with the teachers who are the primary agents of instructional reform (Bybee, 2013). Abstract This qualitative case study explores the perceptions of secondary school science and mathematics teachers regarding STEM education in the context of Hunza. Data was collected from 10 teachers via a multi-method approach, including semi-structured interviews, personal meaning mapping, photo elicitation, and document analysis of lesson plans. Thematic analysis of the data revealed three overarching themes. First, teachers hold multiple, nuanced definitions of STEM education, primarily conceptualising it as integrated learning, technology-based instruction, a student-centred pedagogical approach, and, in one instance, specifically as robotics. Second, teachers perceived significant multifaceted benefits for students, including heightened motivation and active engagement, the development of robust problem-solving and critical thinking skills, early awareness of STEM career pathways, and a marked increase in student confidence. Third, teachers faced substantial systemic and operational challenges in implementation, such as profound difficulties in forming integrated STEM instruction due to a lack of cross-disciplinary content knowledge, lack of specialised in-service training, overwhelming time constraints within a rigid curriculum, and a pervasive lack of administrative and resource support. The study finds a significant gap between acknowledging STEM’s importance and effectively implementing it. Thus, it recommends a comprehensive strategy that includes creating a clear, localised definition of STEM through collaboration, providing ongoing teacher training, reforming the curriculum for flexibility, and increasing administrative support and funding. Keywords Integrated learning Professional development STEM education Teachers’ perceptions of STEM Teaching approach 415 Exploring Science and Maths Teachers’ Perceptions of STEM Education in Hunza, Gilgit Baltistan Vol. 5 No. 4 (November, 2025) Teachers are the indispensable pedagogical leaders in their classrooms, and their role in implementing and sustaining educational innovations like STEM is paramount (Wang et al., 2011). Their attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions significantly impact their pedagogical choices and classroom practices, which in turn directly influence student learning outcomes and experiences (Margot & Kettler, 2019; Zhan et al., 2022). Teachers’ views on STEM education include how they see its value, usefulness, achievability, and effectiveness, as well as how confident, skilful, and ready they are to teach in a way that combines different subjects and encourages students to ask questions. Previous studies indicate that educators frequently encounter several challenges, such as misalignment of curricula, resource scarcity, time limitations, inadequate training, and restricted collaborative possibilities (Margot & Kettler, 2019). They could also have wrong ideas or negative feelings about STEM, seeing it as a passing trend, a burden, or a threat to their professional identity (Al Murshidi et al., 2019). There is a significant body of research on teacher perceptions in developed Western countries; however, there is a notable deficiency of studies examining how educators in socio-economically diverse contexts, such as Pakistan, particularly in its mountainous northern regions, perceive and engage with the concept of STEM education. This study seeks to address a significant need by examining the perceptions of secondary school science and mathematics educators in Hunza, Gilgit-Baltistan. It aims to comprehend how these educators delineate STEM, the obstacles they encounter in its execution, and the advantages they believe it provides to their students. The findings of this investigation are poised to provide valuable insights for curriculum developers, teacher trainers, and policymakers seeking to promote meaningful and sustainable STEM education integration in similar contexts. Thus, to carry out this study following research questions are developed. • How do teachers perceive STEM education? • What are the challenges that in-service secondary school teachers face in implementing STEM education in their classrooms? • What are the opportunities for in-service secondary teachers in implementing STEM education in their classrooms? LITERATURE REVIEW The evolution and conceptualization of STEM education provide essential context for understanding current teacher perceptions. The acronym STEM, standing for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, gained widespread prominence in the early 21st century, though its conceptual roots are deeper. The term is credited to the U.S. National Science Foundation, which initially used SMET before changing it to STEM for phonetic reasons. Its rise to global educational prominence can be linked to a response to international economic competitiveness and concerns about national security, notably after reports highlighted a comparative lag in the STEM competencies of U.S. students (Friedman, 2005; National Academy of Sciences, 2007). However, as Bybee (2013) extensively documents, the emphasis on science and mathematics education has earlier origins, tracing back to events like the post-Sputnik education reforms of the 1950s and 1960s, which marked a significant shift towards prioritizing these disciplines to ensure national defence and technological superiority. A persistent and fundamental challenge in the field is the lack of a universally agreed-upon definition of STEM education. Due to the involvement of diverse interest groups—including governmental organizations, businesses, and educational institutions, each with distinct objectives—scholars have not reached a consensus on a single definition or approach (Siekmann, 2016). Academics also disagree on the nature of the relationship between the four disciplines, leading to a variety of classifications, from teaching them separately to fully integrating them (Bybee, 2013). Hasanah (2020) categorizes prevailing definitions into four broad categories: STEM as a Discipline, a Field, a Career path, and as an instructional approach. This ambiguity is reflected in the perspectives of educators themselves. A study by Radloff and Guzey (2016) found that preservice teachers’ definitions fell into categories of instruction, integration, exclusion, and discipline. Likewise, Kelley and Knowles (2016) discovered that there was no standard Murtaza & Qutoshi Vol. 5 No. 4 (November, 2025) 416 interpretation of STEM among university staff, since perceptions were influenced by distinct academic backgrounds and mindsets. Even if definitions differ, a common theme in modern literature is the focus on integration and application. Gonzalez and Kuenzi (2012) offer a comprehensive definition, characterising it as teaching and learning in the domains of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics at all educational levels and in both formal and informal contexts. Wang et al. (2011) define STEM as “an interdisciplinary approach to learning where rigorous academic concepts are coupled with real-world lessons,” which is more in line with the integrative view. They assert that instead of segregating the disciplines, STEM education ought to embody their interrelatedness in the actual world through problem-based learning. The notion of “STEM literacy” expands this idea – the capacity to recognise and utilise concepts from STEM fields to comprehend and tackle intricate, real-world issues that cannot be resolved through a singular disciplinary perspective (McDonald, 2016; Zollman, 2012). Teachers’ perspectives are a crucial factor in the efficacy of any educational innovation, including STEM. Studies show that teachers generally have a good opinion of the goals of STEM education. Research conducted with pre-service and in-service teachers from diverse nations, such as Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, indicates that educators acknowledge the significance of STEM for students’ academic growth and future career opportunities, advocating for its incorporation into educational curricula (Al Murshidi et al., 2019). They agree that STEM applications link what children learn in class to what they do every day, help them learn how to solve problems, and can even affect their career choices. Primary school teachers also have favourable attitudes, but they frequently identify more significant challenges regarding use of STEM (Samara & Kotsis, 2023). The evidence indicates that the perceived advantages of STEM education are diverse. For students, they include getting them ready for the global job market where STEM skills are in great demand, helping them think critically (Winarni & Rahman, 2025), and encouraging creativity and new ideas (Mok & Ren, 2021). Experiences in STEM can boost students’ motivation, engagement, and self-efficacy (Chittum et al., 2017), as well as help them learn about and be interested in STEM jobs early on (Cohen et al., 2013). Nonetheless, these prospective advantages are frequently mitigated by considerable obstacles encountered by educators throughout the implementation phase. A substantial corpus of research elucidates prevalent obstacles. One of the biggest problems is that there aren’t enough trained teachers that know a lot about different subjects (El-Deghaidy & Mansour, 2015). This is exacerbated by a significant deficiency in sufficient pre-service and in-service professional development aimed at integrated STEM instructional approaches (Shernoff et al., 2017; Altan & Ercan, 2016). Teachers repeatedly express a lack of time for preparing and executing resource-intensive, project-based STEM classes amid a congested curriculum (Srikoom & Faikhamta, 2018). Other big problems are not enough support from administrators, not enough money, not enough lab supplies and tech tools, and occasionally students not being ready or motivated (Margot & Kettler, 2019). In underdeveloped nations such as Pakistan, these problems exist within a broader educational framework characterised by limited resources and a conventional examination-centric culture, rendering the integration of STEM extremely intricate (Aslam et al., 2022; Hali et al., 2021). This study aims to examine the manifestation of global themes within the specific, under-researched environment of public secondary schools in Gilgit-Baltistan. METHODOLOGY Study Design and Rationale This study utilised a qualitative case study methodology. The decision to utilise a qualitative approach was motivated by the research purpose to examine the intricate and nuanced perspectives of teachers in depth, rather than to quantify or generalise these perceptions. Qualitative research is defined by its capacity to explore intricate relationships and contextual nuances, facilitating a comprehensive knowledge of a phenomenon within its actual environment (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). A case study 417 Exploring Science and Maths Teachers’ Perceptions of STEM Education in Hunza, Gilgit Baltistan Vol. 5 No. 4 (November, 2025) approach was considered most suitable as it entails a comprehensive, multi-dimensional examination of a singular instance (the perceptions of instructors at one school) inside its naturalistic setting, employing several kinds of evidence to achieve a complete understanding (Starman, 2013). This method corresponds with the interpretive paradigm, which prioritises comprehending the significance and context of human experiences using qualitative data and thematic analysis. Researchers Role In qualitative research, the researcher(s) serve as the principal instrument for data collection and analysis, with their background and beliefs potentially impacting the study process. The researchers in this study have ten years of expertise teaching science and mathematics in Hunza and demonstrates a profound commitment to STEM education. Recognising that this passion can lead to bias, the researchers utilised reflexivity throughout the investigation. This necessitated ongoing self-reflection and a critical awareness of how their personal experiences and preconceptions could influence the study process, encompassing data collection and interpretation. Notes were kept to keep track of these thoughts. The researchers were also aware of “backyard research” issues, which are the possible effects of having connections to the site or participants before the study began. To avoid this affecting the responses of participants or the interpretation of data too much, the researchers took careful steps (Pannucci & Wilkins, 2010). Participants in the Research and Sampling Ten classroom instructors who work at a public secondary school in Hunza took part in this study. Purposive sampling was employed to guarantee the inclusion of information-rich participants capable of offering profound insights into the phenomenon under investigation (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). To be chosen, participants had to be teachers of math, computer science or science topics (Physics, Chemistry, Biology) for grades 9 and 10. This sample approach made sure that the main STEM fields were represented. To get to the research site, the school principal had to give their consent verbally and later in writing. After that, all teachers who were eligible got Letters of Interest and Informed Consent forms. There were ten teachers in the final sample. Table 1 below shows a summary of their traits. They used pseudo names to keep their identities secret. Table 1 Characteristics of Participants Participant Subject Taught Highest Degree Gender Teaching Experience (Years) A Biology MSc F 8 B Physics BS M 6 C Chemistry MSc M 11 D Computer Science BCS F 5 E Mathematics MSc M 9 F Biology MSc M 7 G Physics MSc M 12 H Chemistry BS M 4 I Computer Science BCS F 6 J Mathematics MSc M 10 Data Collection Methods and Procedures To ensure credibility, trustworthiness, and a comprehensive understanding, a multi-method approach to data collection was employed over four phases, facilitating triangulation. Triangulation is the process of employing more than one approach to research the same thing. This helps to cross-validate data and give a stronger set of results (Given, 2008; Baxter & Jack, 2008). Table 2 shows the phased strategy in Murtaza & Qutoshi Vol. 5 No. 4 (November, 2025) 418 Table 2. Table 2 Phases of Data Collection Phase Week Data Collection Method Process I 1 Personal Meaning Mapping (PMM) Face-to-face II 2 Photo Elicitation Instructions Face-to-face III 3 Semi-structured Interviews Face-to-face IV 4 Document Analysis On-site Phase I: Personal Meaning Mapping (PMM) Personal Meaning Mapping (PMM) is a visual data gathering method derived on concept mapping, enabling participants to freely connect ideas, words, and experiences associated with a primary concept. In this study, participants received a blank piece of paper inscribed with “STEM” at the centre and were guided to write or illustrate any thoughts pertaining to STEM education in their classroom within a onehour timeframe. This approach yielded preliminary insights into how educators conceptually structured and individually articulated STEM, encapsulating the scope and interrelations of their ideas in a nonlinear manner (Lelliott, 2009). Phase II: Photo Elicitation Photo elicitation is when you use pictures in an interview to get people to talk about deeper meanings and have more in-depth conversations than just asking them questions (Harper, 2002). Participants were guided to choose a single photograph from their own collections that they felt most accurately depicted the nature of STEM teaching in their classroom. They have a week to finish this job. These pictures were a visual record of their ideas and were used as a stimulus during the interviews that followed to get people talking about their thoughts in detail (Torre & Murphy, 2015). Phase III: Semi-Structured Interviews Semi-structured interviews were conducted to explore the participants’ perceptions in depth. This method provides a flexible framework, allowing the researchers to guide the conversation with predetermined open-ended questions while also permitting the exploration of emergent themes and prompts for clarification (Glesne, 2016). The interview protocol was developed based on the literature review and was informed by the initial analysis of each participant’s PMM and photograph. Interviews began with a discussion of the PMM, moved to the photograph, and then broadened to general questions about the definition, benefits, and challenges of STEM education. This process allowed for a detailed understanding of each teacher’s unique perspective. Each interview was audio-recorded and later transcribed verbatim for analysis. Phase IV: Document Analysis Document analysis is a systematic procedure for reviewing and evaluating documents, both printed and electronic (Bowen, 2009). In this phase, the researchers analysed teachers’ lesson plans. This provided tangible evidence of how STEM principles were (or were not) translated into practical instructional planning, offering a counterpoint to the claimed perceptions and practices discussed in the interviews. It helped to identify the gap between espoused theories (what teachers said they do) and theories-in-use (what their plans indicated they do). Data Analysis Data analysis was an ongoing and iterative process that occurred concurrently with data collection. The analysis followed the steps outlined by Creswell and Creswell (2017), involving organizing, reducing, and synthesizing the data to identify significant patterns. The transcribed interviews, PMMs, photographs, 419 Exploring Science and Maths Teachers’ Perceptions of STEM Education in Hunza, Gilgit Baltistan Vol. 5 No. 4 (November, 2025) and lesson plan notes were reviewed multiple times to ensure familiarity. Open coding was initially applied to the interview transcripts and field notes, generating an initial list of codes. These codes were then constantly compared across all data sources. Through a process of refinement, similar codes were grouped into categories, which were subsequently synthesized into overarching themes that directly addressed the research questions. As the study integrated multiple forms of data (visual and textual), a thematic analysis across all datasets was employed to ensure the themes were robust and representative of the complete evidence (Ponelis, 2015). Ethical Considerations Ethical considerations were paramount. Formal approval was obtained from the school administration. All participants provided written informed consent before participation, having been thoroughly informed about the study’s purpose, procedures, potential risks, and benefits. They were assured of their right to withdraw at any time without penalty. To ensure confidentiality and anonymity, all identifying information was removed. Participants were assigned pseudonyms (Participant A through J), and the school name was withheld in all reporting. All data was stored securely, and access was limited to the researcher. RESULTS & FINDINGS The analysis of the rich qualitative data yielded three prominent themes that comprehensively address the research questions: the multifaceted nature of teachers’ definitions of STEM, the perceived challenges of implementation, and the recognized benefits for students. Educators’ Multifaceted and Experiential Definitions of STEM A key finding was that teachers did not have a single, unified definition of STEM education. Instead, they constructed their own meanings based on their experiences, professional development, and individual understanding, aligning with constructivist principles of learning. Their conceptualizations, while varied, consistently highlighted certain core components. STEM as Integrated Learning The most prevalent conception, expressed by six out of ten teachers, was that STEM education fundamentally involves the integration of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics into a single, cohesive learning experience. These teachers emphasized that the subjects are intrinsically interlinked and should not be taught in isolation. Participant G, a physics teacher, articulated this after attending a workshop, “Before that workshop, my understanding of STEM was different. However, after that workshop, STEM is simply the integration of all four subjects in one class. Because, they are not isolated. They all are interlinked.” Participant D, a computer science teacher, provided a concrete example, “For example, now I engage students in different projects and discussions and also use online learning tools to explain a single topic. We use multiple activities in one class like the project is engineering, and using audio and visual aids in class is technology. Therefore, STEM is the integration of if not all four subjects but 2 to 3 subjects in a single class.” Often, teachers used examples of their practice rather than abstract definitions to explain integration, suggesting their understanding was deeply rooted in practical application. STEM as Technology-Based Learning For three teachers, the concept of STEM was predominantly centred on the incorporation of technology into the classroom. They equated STEM with the use of digital tools and audio-visual aids to enhance Murtaza & Qutoshi Vol. 5 No. 4 (November, 2025) 420 traditional teaching. Participant C (Chemistry) stated, “STEM education is a good thing where we use audio-visual aids in the classroom to teach any topic... when I teach about atoms I use multimedia to show a 360-degree image.” Similarly, Participant I (Mathematics) defined STEM as, “a use of a laptop, multimedia, and other audio-visual aids in the classroom is STEM education which develops interest for that subject among students.” This perspective suggests a more limited, though still positive, view where technology is the primary, and sometimes sole, differentiating factor of STEM. STEM as a Student-Centred Approach Four teachers described STEM not just in terms of content but as a fundamental shift in pedagogy from a traditional, teacher-centric model to a student-centred one. They highlighted increased student agency, engagement, and active learning. Participant I contrasted it with traditional methods, “Unlike traditional education method where the teacher is the primary component, STEM education emphasizes students’ engagement, creativity and problem solving... we give opportunities to ask questions, conduct projects, and work with peers to find the solutions of the problems.” This view aligns STEM with constructivist and inquiry-based learning principles, focusing on the process of learning rather than just the tools or subjects involved. STEM as the Study of Robotics One teacher (Participant D) provided a highly specific definition, equating STEM education primarily with the teaching and learning of robotics. This teacher viewed robotics as the ultimate application where theoretical knowledge from science and mathematics is synthesized through engineering and technology to create functional solutions, thereby encompassing all elements of STEM in a single, engaging domain that naturally fosters critical thinking and collaboration. Systemic and Operational Challenges in STEM Implementation Despite recognizing the value of STEM, all teachers reported facing significant, and often demotivating, challenges when attempting to implement it in their classrooms. These challenges were systemic, pointing to issues beyond individual teacher motivation. Difficulty in Forming Integrated STEM Instruction The foremost challenge was the practical difficulty of designing and developing integrated lesson plans. This overarching difficulty was broken down into three specific barriers. Lack of Cross-Disciplinary Content Knowledge Teachers expressed a lack of confidence in their knowledge of subjects outside their specialization. Participant K (Mathematics) shared, “it is easy to integrate technology in math but I cannot integrate science and technology in my subject.” A physics teacher echoed this, proclaiming, “I have an idea of STEM education but when I sit to make a lesson, I always feel difficulty because of poor in-depth knowledge about it.” This lack of broad content knowledge is a critical barrier to creating truly integrative experiences. 421 Exploring Science and Maths Teachers’ Perceptions of STEM Education in Hunza, Gilgit Baltistan Vol. 5 No. 4 (November, 2025) Lack of Specialized In-Service Training Teachers universally reported a deficiency in professional development. Participant K stated, “lack of proper in-service training about STEM integration is missing in our education system.” Participant E added, “Unfortunately many teachers were not trained... and also after starting our teaching journey, because of that STEM integration remained complicated for us.” Participant I’s confession was particularly telling, “I want to use hands-on activities... but without training, I am confused from where to start, therefore, I use traditional methods... as I am comfortable with them.” This highlights how a lack of training directly reinforces reliance on traditional methods. Lack of Teacher Interest and Comfort Some teachers admitted to a personal reluctance, finding the STEM approach complicated and preferring the familiarity and perceived efficiency of traditional lecture-based methods. Participant H stated, “I am comfortable in the traditional way of teaching and I feel STEM is quite challenging for me.” Another biology teacher acknowledged the benefits for students but added, “for teachers it is a bit complicated due to which I am hesitant toward it.” This suggests that without adequate support and training, STEM can be perceived as a threat rather than an opportunity. Overwhelming Time Constraints Time was a universal constraint cited by every participant. The challenges related to time were twofold: time for planning integrated lessons and time for delivering them within the school schedule. Participant E was emphatic, “time is very important in the lesson... there is not enough time to deliver a lesson that he made which includes hands-activities, classroom discussion, classroom assessment, and so on.” Teachers also highlighted their additional school responsibilities, which further limited their planning time. The pressure of exam-focused curricula loomed large; Participant J shared, “We have to focus on completion of course which is important for good grade.” This indicates a fundamental conflict between the deep, slow process of project-based STEM learning and the breadth-focused, time-pressured reality of the standard curriculum. Lack of Administrative Support A significant systemic barrier was the perceived lack of support from school administration. Teachers felt that administrators failed to provide the necessary conditions for STEM to thrive. Participant G summarized this in the following words, “Without uncertainty, the absence of help with administration is one of our greatest problems.” This lack of support manifested as inadequate financing for materials, a lack of opportunities for professional growth, and a failure to officially prioritize or acknowledge the value of STEM education